Workers' Compensation

The mother of an injured worker whose estate claims she died due to emotional distress caused by an insurer’s handling
of her son’s case cannot directly sue the insurer before exhausting the regulatory process, the Indiana Court of Appeals
ruled Friday.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that a Hamilton Superior Judge erred in granting an injured worker’s motion to dismiss
a company’s action on whether it was liable to pay workers’ compensation to the injured man, who worked for another
company.

A worker injured in a traffic accident who received a settlement for a workers’ compensation claim in Wisconsin may
proceed with a claim in Indiana, where the crash occurred, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

Because a woman failed to seek appellate review of the decision by the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana that she
was not permanently and totally disabled, she waived any claim of error related to that decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals
has ruled.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the state worker’s compensation board that denied a security guard’s
claim that a car accident on the way to work happened in the course of his employment and should be compensated.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has determined that the estate of an independent contractor who fell off a ladder and died was
properly compensated through the state workers' compensation act, and the man’s estate cannot later claim that his injuries
occurred outside the scope of employment.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a couple’s complaint for injuries and
loss of consortium for subject matter jurisdiction, finding the woman’s injuries sustained while at her work fall squarely
within the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act.

The Full Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana was correct in ordering a business to pay for an employee’s third
surgery that resulted from an accident partially caused by a previous work-related injury.

The Indiana Supreme Court decided Thursday that the period within the general statute of limitations controls the limitation
period when a medical provider may seek payment of outstanding bills for authorized treatment to an employer’s worker.
The justices came to that conclusion after finding the Worker’s Compensation Act is silent on what the applicable limitation
period is for this matter.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that just because a worker injured on the job reaches the maximum amount of compensation
allowed by state statute, that doesn’t mean that future care won’t be needed, and that may warrant additional
payments in order to continue treating pain or injury from the underlying accident.

An overview of the statutory rights of an employer/carrier to recover on such liens is often a good refresher as many attorneys
tend to overlook this important aspect when seeking to settle their liability case.

In June, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the finding of a workers’ compensation judge
who ruled that a man whose wife died of a pulmonary embolism while working from home was entitled to workers’ compensation
survivor benefits. In Renner v. AT&T, No. A-2393-10T3, a doctor admitted that other factors – including
obesity – may have been risk factors for developing the fatal blood clot.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a finding by the state Worker’s Compensation Board that a woman’s employer
isn’t responsible for providing a specific prescription drug to her, noting that the board only focused on one possible
reason why the drug is prescribed.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a workers’ compensation claim, finding the worker’s deposition
testimony didn’t support the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s finding that he admitted his condition
stemmed from a single incident.

An Indiana statute is ambiguous as to whether a person who has exhausted his actual worker’s compensation benefits prior
to 500 weeks is eligible to receive benefits from the Second Injury Fund starting on the date of the exhaustion of the actual
benefits, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the decision by the full Worker’s Compensation Board that a medical services provider’s
application for an adjustment of claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations found in Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-3.
The appellate court relied on a recent decision involving a similar scenario to make its ruling.

Upholding a trial court ruling in a case stemming from a construction site accident, the Indiana Supreme Court has offered
guidance for future trials about how juries should calculate a plaintiff’s already-paid compensation benefits when determining
punitive damage awards.